Background checks

[tiredandemotional]

One of my nieces has applied for a couple of jobs requiring fairly rigorous background checks. She was successful in being offered a start with both subject to the outcome of these background checks. She started with one and was employed by them for about 7 months until she was let go. No proper explanation except the results of the background checks had not come through up to that point. So she’s failed on that, obviously. The other application is ongoing and is known for taking a long time, 6-9 months typically. Having “failed” one I can see no reason to expect she will pass this. Clearly these checks are necessary for the positions she has applied for but the lassie is as clean as a whistle herself with no political affiliations or interests. Parents have no charges or convictions against them but her dads’ brother was well known and on her paternal grandfathers side there are links to N.I. that might raise an eyebrow.

Are there any options that might help her to overcome this hurdle? Job two is something of a dream job for her and she ticks all the boxes otherwise. It would be a shame to see her miss out when she herself is spotless. Suggestions?

[albion]

Can you say what the job was or what background check there was?

[grumpyken52]

It really depends on who is conducting the checks .
If they are official government department checks or similar they tend to be fairly thorough.
If they are done by certain private companies they can be a bit hit and miss .
The really thorough checks will also search the internet and social media , this is known to have a detrimental effect in some cases .
Are they the equivalent of the old CRB or advanced CRB checks or is she being vetted ?

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

[captain_caveman_76]

TiredAndEmotional:
One of my nieces has applied for a couple of jobs requiring fairly rigorous background checks. She was successful in being offered a start with both subject to the outcome of these background checks. She started with one and was employed by them for about 7 months until she was let go. No proper explanation except the results of the background checks had not come through up to that point. So she’s failed on that, obviously. The other application is ongoing and is known for taking a long time, 6-9 months typically. Having “failed” one I can see no reason to expect she will pass this. Clearly these checks are necessary for the positions she has applied for but the lassie is as clean as a whistle herself with no political affiliations or interests. Parents have no charges or convictions against them but her dads’ brother was well known and on her paternal grandfathers side there are links to N.I. that might raise an eyebrow.

Are there any options that might help her to overcome this hurdle? Job two is something of a dream job for her and she ticks all the boxes otherwise. It would be a shame to see her miss out when she herself is spotless. Suggestions?

In my experience, if she was doing a job that required a background check, she shouldn’t be allowed to start working until the results of the check have come through.

If she’s interested, she can pay for her own advanced CRB (used to cost 20 odd quid) and see for herself. Usually takes about a month.

[albion]

It would depend Cavey on what she did whilst there. We have background checks for our drivers, but they do the stuff that doesn’t need the checks for a few months before moving onto the more interesting stuff.

[captain_caveman_76]

albion:
It would depend Cavey on what she did whilst there. We have background checks for our drivers, but they do the stuff that doesn’t need the checks for a few months before moving onto the more interesting stuff.

Fair point. I was thinking more of teaching or nursing though.

Out of interest Albion, are the background checks for your benefit or your clients?

[albion]

Captain Caveman 76:

albion:
It would depend Cavey on what she did whilst there. We have background checks for our drivers, but they do the stuff that doesn’t need the checks for a few months before moving onto the more interesting stuff.

Fair point. I was thinking more of teaching or nursing though.

Out of interest Albion, are the background checks for your benefit or your clients?

It’s actually the clients and they do all the work for us; we obviously get the benefit of knowing we have a goody two shoes driver with none of the effort on our part

[captain_caveman_76]

albion:

Captain Caveman 76:

albion:
It would depend Cavey on what she did whilst there. We have background checks for our drivers, but they do the stuff that doesn’t need the checks for a few months before moving onto the more interesting stuff.

Fair point. I was thinking more of teaching or nursing though.

Out of interest Albion, are the background checks for your benefit or your clients?

It’s actually the clients and they do all the work for us; we obviously get the benefit of knowing we have a good two shoes driver with none of the effort on our part

Thought that might be the case. I was just being nosey.

[rjan]

TiredAndEmotional:
One of my nieces has applied for a couple of jobs requiring fairly rigorous background checks. She was successful in being offered a start with both subject to the outcome of these background checks. She started with one and was employed by them for about 7 months until she was let go. No proper explanation except the results of the background checks had not come through up to that point. So she’s failed on that, obviously. The other application is ongoing and is known for taking a long time, 6-9 months typically. Having “failed” one I can see no reason to expect she will pass this. Clearly these checks are necessary for the positions she has applied for but the lassie is as clean as a whistle herself with no political affiliations or interests. Parents have no charges or convictions against them but her dads’ brother was well known and on her paternal grandfathers side there are links to N.I. that might raise an eyebrow.

Are there any options that might help her to overcome this hurdle? Job two is something of a dream job for her and she ticks all the boxes otherwise. It would be a shame to see her miss out when she herself is spotless. Suggestions?

Is it a job that involves national security or similar?

Because “political affiliation” or “family background” would never be a legitimate reason for dismissal in any ordinary job - and even in the security services, you’d be dismissed with notice and put on garden leave if it was family affiliation or the behaviour of relatives that was the reason, not on the spot.

If I was her I’d demand the information that apparently justified her dismissal so many months after starting work, or else sue (if she wasn’t given her contractual notice period of if the employer cannot show that it was legitimate and non-discriminatory information).

[manski]

I think what the OP is referring to is something more than a CRB check, it’s actually called a DBS check now because it’s done by the disclosure and barring service I have not long had an enhanced DBS check done on me because I am a school governer and you get a copy of the result. In fact you have to positively give your permission for the information to be released to whoever has requested it, in my case the local council. So if it was a CRB / DBS check his niece would have got the result etc. It sounds to me as if she is having to undergo some sort of “vetting”, about which I know nothing I am afraid. It also does not take 9 weeks for a DBS check, more like 3 or 4 as I remember (mind you my sheet was clean )

[albion]

Rjan:
Is it a job that involves national security or similar?

Because “political affiliation” or “family background” would never be a legitimate reason for dismissal in any ordinary job - and even in the security services, you’d be dismissed with notice and put on garden leave if it was family affiliation or the behaviour of relatives that was the reason, not on the spot.

If, just for example, it was an MoD clearance of some sort, then if the DVS failed her, then the job that she was taken on for, would not exist. You don’t have any right to know why you fails a DVS check, only that you have. Of course it may be nothing to do with the DVS, we don’t know until T&E comes back.

[rjan]

albion:

Rjan:
Is it a job that involves national security or similar?

Because “political affiliation” or “family background” would never be a legitimate reason for dismissal in any ordinary job - and even in the security services, you’d be dismissed with notice and put on garden leave if it was family affiliation or the behaviour of relatives that was the reason, not on the spot.

If, just for example, it was an MoD clearance of some sort, then if the DVS failed her, then the job that she was taken on for, would not exist. You don’t have any right to know why you fails a DVS check, only that you have. Of course it may be nothing to do with the DVS, we don’t know until T&E comes back.

My point is that with government clearance, if it is someone else’s behaviour that has become a problem since you were first given clearance, then you won’t just be thrown out on your ear.

If you were a CID officer and it turns out your father has become a drugs kingpin, then your employment would be closed down in an orderly way - assuming you couldn’t be reassigned (which in such a grievous case, you probably could not be!).

Also, the government can generally be trusted to follow the rules and tell the truth about the reasons involved - you wouldn’t be lied to and told you’d failed a security check, as a way of avoiding paying redundancy money, for example.

For purely commercial background checks, the rules are far more stringent and you do have the right to know what information they have and why you’ve failed. There is no secrecy involved.

Although, with only 9 months service, they can give you your notice at any time anyway - provided they can show it is not because of an unlawful purpose.

[albion]

Rjan:

albion:

Rjan:
Is it a job that involves national security or similar?

Because “political affiliation” or “family background” would never be a legitimate reason for dismissal in any ordinary job - and even in the security services, you’d be dismissed with notice and put on garden leave if it was family affiliation or the behaviour of relatives that was the reason, not on the spot.

If, just for example, it was an MoD clearance of some sort, then if the DVS failed her, then the job that she was taken on for, would not exist. You don’t have any right to know why you fails a DVS check, only that you have. Of course it may be nothing to do with the DVS, we don’t know until T&E comes back.

My point is that with government clearance, if it is someone else’s behaviour that has become a problem since you were first given clearance, then you won’t just be thrown out on your ear.

If you were a CID officer and it turns out your father has become a drugs kingpin, then your employment would be closed down in an orderly way - assuming you couldn’t be reassigned (which in such a grievous case, you probably could not be!).

Also, the government can generally be trusted to follow the rules and tell the truth about the reasons involved - you wouldn’t be lied to and told you’d failed a security check, as a way of avoiding paying redundancy money, for example.

For purely commercial background checks, the rules are far more stringent and you do have the right to know what information they have and why you’ve failed. There is no secrecy involved.

Although, with only 9 months service, they can give you your notice at any time anyway - provided they can show it is not because of an unlawful purpose.

If nothing else, we can always say you are thorough Rjan.

My understanding was that she had never passed whatever check, MoD or something else, in the first place. If that’s the case then that explains why she was asked to go. We have no idea if she was ‘thrown out on her ear’, the actual dismissal procedure is not explained in T&E’s OP.

I can assure you they can rescind your clearance or refuse to re-clear without giving a reason why. In fact it’s unusual to know why they failed you. If you do something once you have a clearance and the clearance is compromised because of your actions, then most firms would have it as a gross dismissal clause in their Ts & Cs.

No idea about police, CRB, DBS or anything else though.

[wheel_nut]

I had a career break and needed airport security and because I couldn’t prove where I had been an old mate swore an affidavit for me.

So after 2 years away in Africa they gave me triple A at East Midlands Airport [emoji12]

[rjan]

albion:
If nothing else, we can always say you are thorough Rjan.

No doubt “thoroughly wrong” is on the tip of everyone’s tongues!

My understanding was that she had never passed whatever check, MoD or something else, in the first place. If that’s the case then that explains why she was asked to go. We have no idea if she was ‘thrown out on her ear’, the actual dismissal procedure is not explained in T&E’s OP.

I can assure you they can rescind your clearance or refuse to re-clear without giving a reason why. In fact it’s unusual to know why they failed you. If you do something once you have a clearance and the clearance is compromised because of your actions, then most firms would have it as a gross dismissal clause in their Ts & Cs.

No idea about police, CRB, DBS or anything else though.

As I say, the employer is only entitled to secrecy when it is a statutory clearance scheme supporting national security or some kind of public interest in general - in this case, it is true you may not be told your reasons for failure. But these schemes are also closely regulated and monitored, and the background checking function is centralised and completely separate from the services or employers that rely on these checks.

In ordinary commercial settings where employers themselves often do a “background check” on employees (and T&E is not clear whether this is the case), the employer cannot dismiss you for secret reasons on secret evidence. There is no legitimate justification for it, and the employer does not stand as a public authority that is permitted to perform such functions in the public interest (and carry the regulatory constraints that go with it).

If the employer themselves has been told by a government agency that a security clearance has been revoked, and the employer themselves have not been given further information, then it may be fair to dismiss the employee simply on that ground - of course the employer cannot give information that they don’t have, but they can give evidence that the revocation of the clearance was on account of a public agency (and not the employer’s own decision).

The CRB and DBS cases also do not generally involve secrecy - a specific reference to evidence would only be withheld from an employee in exceptional circumstances in the opinion of someone other than the employer (e.g. to protect police intelligence sources), and there would be a review mechanism in place if you felt that the situation was completely inexplicable.

[freight_dog]

Rjan:

albion:
If nothing else, we can always say you are thorough Rjan.

No doubt “thoroughly wrong” is on the tip of everyone’s tongues!

My understanding was that she had never passed whatever check, MoD or something else, in the first place. If that’s the case then that explains why she was asked to go. We have no idea if she was ‘thrown out on her ear’, the actual dismissal procedure is not explained in T&E’s OP.

I can assure you they can rescind your clearance or refuse to re-clear without giving a reason why. In fact it’s unusual to know why they failed you. If you do something once you have a clearance and the clearance is compromised because of your actions, then most firms would have it as a gross dismissal clause in their Ts & Cs.

No idea about police, CRB, DBS or anything else though.

As I say, the employer is only entitled to secrecy when it is a statutory clearance scheme supporting national security or some kind of public interest in general - in this case, it is true you may not be told your reasons for failure. But these schemes are also closely regulated and monitored, and the background checking function is centralised and completely separate from the services or employers that rely on these checks.

In ordinary commercial settings where employers themselves often do a “background check” on employees (and T&E is not clear whether this is the case), the employer cannot dismiss you for secret reasons on secret evidence. There is no legitimate justification for it, and the employer does not stand as a public authority that is permitted to perform such functions in the public interest (and carry the regulatory constraints that go with it).

If the employer themselves has been told by a government agency that a security clearance has been revoked, and the employer themselves have not been given further information, then it may be fair to dismiss the employee simply on that ground - of course the employer cannot give information that they don’t have, but they can give evidence that the revocation of the clearance was on account of a public agency (and not the employer’s own decision).

The CRB and DBS cases also do not generally involve secrecy - a specific reference to evidence would only be withheld from an employee in exceptional circumstances in the opinion of someone other than the employer (e.g. to protect police intelligence sources), and there would be a review mechanism in place if you felt that the situation was completely inexplicable.

How do you know all this?

[rjan]

Freight Dog:

Rjan:
[…]

How do you know all this?

It’s just bringing together a mixture of general knowledge really. There are all sorts of caveats, but the general principle is that an employer has to deal fairly and openly with a worker, and as a citizen (not just a worker) you’re generally entitled to see any information an organisation holds about you. This is why all those dominoes fell in the construction industry over blacklisting. I’m also broadly aware of how a number of different vetting schemes work because colleagues, friends, and myself have come into contact with various kinds of these.

Of course, some of what I’ve said may not relate to T&E’s niece’s situation. I suppose I’d better wait for more information before waffling any further.

[albion]

FWIW, I know it, I just don’t go off piste.

Once T&E talked about political affiliations and grandparents connections, then it is obviously not a CRB or standard employer check.

Her clearance hasnt been revoked, because she didn’t pass in the first place and employment was dependent on her doing so. As it wasn’t a company check, can’t see the point of talking about it.

As long as she was dismissed correctly then talk of sueing people is irrelevant and there was nothing to suggest one way or the other. It’s fair. To assume that it’s a decent size organisation and usually they get dismissal procedure right. I said usually!

I’ll let Rjan carry on without me know as I’ve done my bit.

[uktramp]

Any checks that are done regardless of enhanced, CRB or even Lvl 2 as I have had, you get the results and show the cert to your employer. If you fail it, you also get the reasons why. Otherwise we would be living in a secret state and you could be put on a black list without knowing the reason why and their information could also be wrong. Only terrorist activities are exempt from this rule.

[freight_dog]

Rjan:

Freight Dog:

Rjan:
[…]

How do you know all this?

It’s just bringing together a mixture of general knowledge really. There are all sorts of caveats, but the general principle is that an employer has to deal fairly and openly with a worker, and as a citizen (not just a worker) you’re generally entitled to see any information an organisation holds about you. This is why all those dominoes fell in the construction industry over blacklisting. I’m also broadly aware of how a number of different vetting schemes work because colleagues, friends, and myself have come into contact with various kinds of these.

Of course, some of what I’ve said may not relate to T&E’s niece’s situation. I suppose I’d better wait for more information before waffling any further.

I was just curious. You seem to have a real in depth knowledge of different back ground checks. A really odd subject to have general knowledge on .

Most people I know wouldn’t have a clue without googling. I’ve gone through security clearances and criminal checks for the last 15 years and still have no in depth knowledge. I just send the papers off, jump the hoops and hope they don’t mix me up with someone else